The Tyranny Vs the Humans of LGBT

Hello world, I am Réasúnach! As you can well see I have called this blog “The Tyranny vs the Humans of LGBT”. The tyranny is indeed in reference to the majority of mainstream religions practiced on this planet to this day, mainly Christianity & Islam.

I quite very purposely use the phrase “the humans of the LGBT”. Too often are the LGBT treated as less than human or second class citizens,which by the way there is no justification. I recall once coming across an individual online claiming that homosexuality is merely a parody of humanity. This not only illustrates the ignorance or the religious fundamentalists but their flaming bigotry as well, its no different to who Hitler viewed the Jews “not really human at all” I also use the term “humans of the LGBT” as a comparison to the religious fundamentalists, as they don’t know how to be human, they know how to be religious and simply cannot nor will not separate the two. They are far to obsessed with pleasing their god to even try to understand this.

You may be wondering to yourself why I refer to religion as a “tyranny”. Well that is because organised religion is a tyranny. Tyranny by definition is a “cruel and oppressive government or rule”. Religious organisations while mostly separated by government (at least in theory) are not a “government”, however their beliefs are quite often and mostly cruel, the application of those beliefs are quite often oppressive on many areas all across the board. Furthermore religious beliefs are enforced as “rule” in many different ways, they may be described as “Gods law” or in the case of Christianity “Commandments” or a “Covenant”. And even if religion and state are separated, whose to say that the government leaders who are men or women of faith don’t simply use their position of power to enforce their faith upon their nation? How many US politicians was it that referred to the United States as a “Christian Nation”? Too many in my opinion. Quite clearly fundamental religionism is indeed a tyranny and those who advocate this tyranny and fuel it are indeed tyrants of the most vicious variety.

It seems the two hottest topics of concern of the tyrants of religion are the rights and freedoms of the LGBT community and women. I say women not just in reference to the outrageous treatment of women living under the tyranny of Islamic nations, nor am I just talking about the Christian ideology that women have a “duty” or “place”. But also due to the matter that women should have the choice to be entirely in control of their bodies and no authority should ever be able to dictate what she should or should not do. I’ll get back to women’s rights and abortion in a later blog, but for this blog, I want to talk about gay rights or to be more precise the rights of the LGBT community.

First of all for those who are ignorant, LGBT is made up of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender persons. We call it a community because it is a group of people who share a common interest or goal. Those common interests or goals a very fairly common sensical and self explanatory and shouldn’t need further elaboration, but I know how “confusing” things can be for the religious so I will clarify this anyway.

The LGBT want to be viewed as human beings, with the same rights and privileges as any other person. Despite what many religious fundamentalists may tell you, we do not want special rights, we want equal rights.

In terms of marriage, many opponents of same sex marriage will enforce an ideal of marriage based on definition and will simply tell you that because the definition of marriage states that a marriage is one man and one woman that anything other than this would be a special right. The very thing they don’t understand or perhaps refuse to acknowledge is that definition in of itself is enforcing a “special right” as the fundamentalists so colourfully put it. It is describing a special right exclusively for heterosexual couples. No matter how one tries to word play this, there is no arguing around that. That definition (out-dated in my opinion) enforces special rights exclusively for heterosexuals and is therefore a special right.

Definitions have been changed before in order to adapt and evolve with social changes, new information and a simply recognition of moving forward. As it is you can find a whole variety of online dictionaries in which define marriage in many different senses.

For example the Online Oxford English Dictionary defines marriage as such:

“the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognised by law, by which they become husband and wife:”

“(in some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex.”

So as you can see the OOED is being very honest in regard to the current status of a marriage. Its recognizing that same sex marriage exists, but is also acknowledging that not all nations avail of this right. Dictionary.com has a very interesting broad variety of the definitions of marriage, with a total of 10 different definitions (6 of which are in reference to the legal or religious joining of two human beings, not forgetting to mention same sex marriage). So quite clearly the definition of marriage can actually be changed and this process as you can see has already begun, its just a matter of time before all dictionaries evolve and adapt to the current times and move away from out dated descriptions.

But what else do these tyrants argue to enforce their desire for special rights? Well I’ve been debating with theists on this subject for quite some time now and here are some of the key arguments:

Argument 1:

The institution of marriage was established by God in the Garden of Eden (Non-Christian religions have their own version of this)

Rebuttal:

The Fact is there is no proof or evidence for the existence of this God or indeed any God for that claim to hold any credibility. But in the case of Christianity & Islam, the Hammurabi Code is the oldest record of a marriage law and predates both of these religions and their holy books; so they couldn’t of been responsible for the establishment of marriage

Argument 2:

Homosexuality is an abomination of God and unnatural

Rebuttal:

Again there is no evidence for any God and therefore the claim that any God may be disdained by my mere existence when the God’s own existence has no proof, isn’t credible and doesn’t concern me. As for homosexuality being unnatural, that is a literal impossibility. For something to be unnatural it must exist outside nature. Homosexuality has been documented within the animal kingdom, it exists in the natural world therefore it must be natural. The only thing in this debate which is not natural is the god you profess to believe in, because it does not exist in the natural world

Argument 3:

I have no problem with homosexuals marrying so long as its with a member of the opposite sex

Rebuttal:

Invest in a dictionary! Homosexuals are not interested in members of the opposite sex. What you are suggesting is a marriage based on oppression. A marriage based on oppression is not a healthy one by any means

I am literally baffled and horrified at the constant endless tyranny the religious fundamentalists rage on against the LGBT community just because their existence happens to contradict the dictations of their faith. Extending marriage will change the foundation of marriage only in the sense that it expands this foundation to others. In the long run it does not effect heterosexual marriage in any manner shape or form. They are not the ones being denied from expressing their love to their partner is the biggest way one could possibly express love.

While marriage leads to all sorts of beneficial legal rights and privileges. I often wonder if the fundamental tyrants understand that two persons of the same sex just want to make a declaration of love. They want to have a special day, when they can take their loved ones hand look them in the eyes, put a ring on their finger and say “I love you so much, I want us to be regarded as one. This is my way of saying I want to be yours forever”

Perhaps the opponents of same sex marriage have forgotten the core reason why most people decide to marry, that reason is love. Perhaps they marry out of tradition and have so little love all they can express is hatred, contempt and jealously for others that experience love. Or maybe they truly are just selfish tyrants that want nothing more than to preserve their special club and its special rights...